You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Pelosi calls for birth control to stimulate the economy (eugenics?)

I'm going to provide a couple different sources to give a slightly more balanced perspective on this. Basically, deranged old bat called for tax payer money to be spent to provide for a contraception initiative in low income communities across the country. She says "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government" and said it will stimulate the economy. In other words, she advocates reducing the population/population growth in the lower tiers of U.S. classes as a way of saving us money. *shakes head*

Nancy Pelosi says birth control will help the US economy
Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, has angered conservatives by claiming that birth control will help the ailing American economy.

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 12:20AM GMT 27 Jan 2009

The Democratic leader defended plans in the government's $825 billion (£600 billion) economic stimulus package to reimburse states for contraceptives and other family planning services given out as part of the Medicaid programme for people who cannot afford health insurance.

Mrs Pelosi said that "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government".

Mrs Pelosi, the mother of five children and grandmother to six, did not spell out exactly how fewer babies would help the economy.

But she told ABC television: "The family planning services reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs.

"One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government," she said in an interview on Sunday on ABC's This Week.

John Boehner, the House Republican leader, told Fox News: "Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats' spending plan has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating more American jobs."

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi on birth-control funding as part of the $825 billion stimulus package: "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Me: This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow. Maby this purely economic argument from the book Empty Cradle by Phil Longman will sway her:

Population aging also depresses the growth of government revenues. Population growth is a major source of economic growth: more people create more demand for the products capitalists sell, and more supply of the labor capitalists buy. Economists may be able to construct models of how economies could grow amid a shrinking population, but in the real world, it has never happened. A nation's GDP is literally the sum of its labor force times average output per worker. Thus a decline in the number of workers implies a decline in an economy's growth potential. When the size of the work force falls, economic growth can occur only if productivity increases enough to compensate.

WASHINGTON, January 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday morning that the government should pay for birth control as a part of the economic stimulus package in order to reduce costs.

"So now, according to Pelosi's thinking, flooding abortion clinics with tax money to pay for contraception is supposed to stimulate the economy. That's 'freakonomics' at best. But at worst, it is a government sponsored program to reduce the population," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "This is the beginning of the pay-back to Planned Parenthood for supporting Obama."

Abortion businesses, such as Planned Parenthood are likely to financially benefit the most from Pelosi's anti-baby windfall. Birth control pills are abortefacients that can either kill human beings in the earliest stage of development. Birth control failure can lead to an increase in abortions. Because of this, there are moral objections to birth control pills and other so-called contraceptives.

"Pelosi is implying that low-income people should not be having babies as a means of stimulating the economy. This is the complete opposite of what her Catholic religious beliefs instruct her. The Bible clearly states that children are a gift from God and a reward, not a burden," said Newman.

"Pelosi is literally placing a price-tag on the lives of innocent children. It is outrageous and abhorrent that the government should attempt to use tax dollars to regulate the size of one's family based on their socio-economic status. It smacks of eugenics. That is a policy you would expect to find in Communist China, but not in the United States."

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become the voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the pre-born and stop abortion in obedience to biblical mandates.

In perhaps the most absurd move yet by the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is defending her move to include hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money in the stimulus plan to expand family planning services — arguing that it will help financially strapped states.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (AP file photo)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (AP file photo)

Yes folks, her brain has now officially gone numb.

“…this is a, to stimulate the economy, is an economic recovery package and as we put it forth we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. Believe it or not, they’re the right thing to do but they also stimulate the economy,” Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” who unsurprisingly didn’t press her on how exactly she deduces this notion.

In Pelosi’s world, less mouths to feed equals less money states will have to spend. Show me one economist that says that we are in an economic crisis because of a birth control shortage, or one that says more contraception (aka: population control) will get us out of it faster. What’s next? Federally funded euthanasia?

Rise and shine, Republicans. My prediction that Obama, Reid and Pelosi would present an opportunity for the GOP has already come true.

Republicans aren’t the only ones shaking their heads in disbelief at Pelosi’s latest perplexing policy push. She will likely make many Democrats horribly uncomfortable. It’s one thing to be pro-Choice; it’s another to spend tax payer money on abortions at home — and abroad — in the middle of a financial crisis. And it’s my hunch it won’t take the American people long to figure out what’s going on. This means big problems for our new president, who just last week reversed the Mexico City policy which federally funds overseas abortions.

As I’ve argued before, Obama’s biggest short-to-medium-term problem isn’t Republicans — disorganized, dispirited, and unsure of their footing and without decisive leadership — his problem is the members of his own party who are determined to implement a radical agenda that will eventually alienate middle America. It is a stale, shopworn agenda that is bereft of new ideas, and it could end up creating major problems for the president and the Democratic Party by ultimately wakening conservatives from their stupor.

Rise and shine, Republicans. My prediction that Obama, Reid and Pelosi would present an opportunity for the GOP has already come true.

825 billion dollars is a bit ridiculous for contraceptives and family planning.. maybe 25 billion tops would be more rational (though I don't know how much that really amounts to, but I do know that nearly 1 trillion dollars is just stupid).

However, I do support the concept, it is crucial for the future of our species on this planet to start reducing population growth.

825 billion dollars is a bit ridiculous for contraceptives and family planning.. maybe 25 billion tops would be more rational (though I don't know how much that really amounts to, but I do know that nearly 1 trillion dollars is just stupid).

However, I do support the concept, it is crucial for the future of our species on this planet to start reducing population growth.

As a species I think it's more beneficial to keep populating. We will soon be able to make technological advances that will drastically change the way we use resources. I'm quite convinced a TRUE alternative form of energy will be developed, perhaps having an almost "free" quality to it in regards to availability and cost to any other aspect of human civilization. If we do develop such a thing, obviously it'll support a much greater population of people on the planet. As of now, there is no need for such a program. I find it to be offensive, and wonder what mentality she possesses that would motivate her to support such a thing. Or perhaps she's just pandering to special interest groups as ALL politicians do. sigh.

Oh, and 825 billion is the total amount of the latest stimulus bill, not the portion used for this contraception plan.

I think it's a good idea, although not for economic reasons. I just think people who can't afford birth control probably can't afford to raise kids...and I think giving more options is rarely a bad thing. Kids aren't going to be healthy in a situation where they're not wanted.

Anyway, it's not like they're going to shove pills down every "disadvantaged" person's throat...just make it more accessible, unless I'm mistaken. So go easy on the eugenics nonsense.

I think it's a good idea, although not for economic reasons. I just think people who can't afford birth control probably can't afford to raise kids...and I think giving more options is rarely a bad thing. Kids aren't going to be healthy in a situation where they're not wanted.

Anyway, it's not like they're going to shove pills down every "disadvantaged" person's throat...just make it more accessible, unless I'm mistaken. So go easy on the eugenics nonsense.

True, aside from the fact that I don't know a god damn person who can't afford a condom and is actually getting some tail.

Exponentially? No. A 1.1% annual population growth in the USA means that in 65 years there will be twice as many people here.

Originally Posted by Risen

We will soon be able to make technological advances that will drastically change the way we use resources.

Technological improvements only slightly ease the burden of exponential population growth.

For example: There is an island that is only capable of supporting 1 million inhabitants, but every year (annually), there is enough improvement in technology for it to be able to support 10,000 more people. Lets say the initial population is 500,000 and has a 2% growth rate.

In 36 years, the population will be 1 million people. The island is now capable of supporting 1,360,000 people.

In 36 more years, the population will be 2 million people. Problem is, the island is only capable of supporting 1,720,000 people.

This trend is very real, I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass, my example here is supported by observation.

And remember, this Island is no different than a Planet.

Originally Posted by Risen

I'm quite convinced a TRUE alternative form of energy will be developed, perhaps having an almost "free" quality to it in regards to availability and cost to any other aspect of human civilization.

Alternative forms of energy are not universal. What use is solar power where the climate permits little sunshine? What use is wind power where there is not a constant flow of wind? What use is hydrologic power where there isn't much water, or its availability is inconsistent? We can't just pull energy out of nowhere, and we sure as hell can't put our last hopes on a Universal alternative form of energy just showing up. Government needs to take action at a local level first, utilizing any sort of clean alternative form of energy available in the given landscape, only in that way will we be safe when oil supply is low (the amount of oil is finite and will run out) and becomes expensive.

Originally Posted by Risen

If we do develop such a thing, obviously it'll support a much greater population of people on the planet.

As I showed, technological improvements only slightly lessen the burden of population growth. There is only so much land to grow crops on to feed the masses. When the masses start to encroach upon those lands, food becomes less availiable, and people start to starve to death (nature's way of getting back into equilibrium).

Originally Posted by Risen

As of now, there is no need for such a program.

Action should be taken immediately before things get worse than they already are. Science is a form of prediction, and right now what it is predicting is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Risen

I find it to be offensive, and wonder what mentality she possesses that would motivate her to support such a thing. Or perhaps she's just pandering to special interest groups as ALL politicians do. sigh.

She is pandering, of course. She doesn't know Why she supports it, but it is something that has to be done.

Exponentially? No. A 1.1% annual population growth in the USA means that in 65 years there will be twice as many people here.

This is just idiotic. Please read about the countries who have negative growth rates vs. ones that have positive growth rates, and tell me how well they are fairing. *HINT* they are not doing so hot. I'll give you another clue too, IRAN. The U.S. growth rate is a healthy one in any comparison I've seen to other countries. This country also has massive swaths of unused land to support population growth, so don't get stuck in some half ass arguments like we're running out of space and resources.

Technological improvements only slightly ease the burden of exponential population growth.

For example: There is an island that is only capable of supporting 1 million inhabitants, but every year (annually), there is enough improvement in technology for it to be able to support 10,000 more people. Lets say the initial population is 500,000 and has a 2% growth rate.

In 36 years, the population will be 1 million people. The island is now capable of supporting 1,360,000 people.

In 36 more years, the population will be 2 million people. Problem is, the island is only capable of supporting 1,720,000 people.

This trend is very real, I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass, my example here is supported by observation.

Alternative forms of energy are not universal. What use is solar power where the climate permits little sunshine? What use is wind power where there is not a constant flow of wind? What use is hydrologic power where there isn't much water, or its availability is inconsistent? We can't just pull energy out of nowhere, and we sure as hell can't put our last hopes on a Universal alternative form of energy just showing up. Government needs to take action at a local level first, utilizing any sort of clean alternative form of energy available in the given landscape, only that way will we be safe when oil supply is low (the amount of oil is finite and will run out) and becomes expensive.

As I showed, technological improvements only slightly lessen the burden of population growth. There is only so much land to grow crops on to feed the masses. When the masses start to encroach upon those lands, food becomes less availiable, and people start to starve to death (nature's way of getting back into equilibrium).

Action should be taken immediately before things get worse than they already are. Science is a form of prediction, and right now what it is predicting is unacceptable

She is pandering, of course. She doesn't know Why she supports it, but it is something that has to be done.

Your scientific arguments don't hold water when we talk about advancements as revolutionizing as the discovery of oil was (as well as the development of electricity, from many sources). NOTHING that has been developed thus far comes close to that. The development of oil as an energy source TREMENDOUSLY increased the ability of human beings to support larger populations and expand civilization. There is nothing comparable to that save for what I am proposing which is the belief amongst some scientists that we will be able to find a comparable source of energy, that would provide us a greater population capacity. If it takes the form of anything that is obtained easily enough and can be moved about the globe efficiently, then such a development in man kind's energy use would allow for a great number of technological advancements that would be supportive of both space and food supply. You don't need sunlight to grow plants, all you need is light. Light can be produced artificially, but the only limit to doing that is ENERGY. We don't know yet how far off we may be from developing such an advancement, but rest assured, it would revolutionize the globe.

This is just idiotic. Please read about the countries who have negative growth rates vs. ones that have positive growth rates, and tell me how well they are fairing. *HINT* they are not doing so hot. I'll give you another clue too, IRAN. The U.S. growth rate is a healthy one in any comparison I've seen to other countries. This country also has massive swaths of unused land to support population growth, so don't get stuck in some half ass arguments like we're running out of space and resources.

I am sorry but I'm just going to have to pull the "I am right, you are wrong" card here :/ This is something that I am fairly well educated in, and I have a feeling that you know not what you speak of.

Iran's correlation with negative growth is not the cause of it's problems.

Yes the US's population growth is fairly good relative to other countries, this is because we are a post-industrialized nation. However, it is still not good enough for reasons I have outlined.

Countries like China and India that are undergoing massive population growth to catch up to the U.S.'s economy are doing so with a price, they are polluting the air, water, and land to an astonishing degree.

Space and resources Are running out, you have to remember that there has to be a substantial amount of land for wildlife (which is essential for our existence, we cannot selfishly continue to destroy other species, entire ecosystems can be/are thrown out of equilibrium from the loss of a single species, the consequences of which do affect us) and for crops (we are constantly breeding new strains of crops that will occupy less space, but there is only so far we can go, and evidence shows that it cannot keep up with exponential population growth)

Originally Posted by Risen

Your scientific arguments don't hold water when we talk about advancements as revolutionizing as the discovery of oil was.

I find the underlined section partially disturbing and what follows it in no way justifies the statement.

Originally Posted by Risen

NOTHING that has been developed thus far comes close to that. The development of oil as an energy source TREMENDOUSLY increased the ability of human beings to support larger populations and expand civilization.

Yes it has, problem is that it has negative effects on the global climate that people didn't know of when oil use was becoming proliferate. It was great to jump-start us into the current age, but now we need to get off the stuff.

Originally Posted by Risen

There is nothing comparable to that save for what I am proposing which is the belief amongst some scientists that we will be able to find a comparable source of energy, that would provide us a greater population capacity. If it takes the form of anything that is obtained easily enough and can be moved about the globe efficiently, then such a development in man kind's energy use would allow for a great number of technological advancements that would be supportive of both space and food supply.

You are still not understanding the concept of Exponents.

Originally Posted by Risen

You don't need sunlight to grow plants, all you need is light. Light can be produced artificially, but the only limit to doing that is ENERGY. We don't know yet how far off we may be from developing such an advancement, but rest assured, it would revolutionize the globe.

Light energy is free, other energy sources aren't. To grow crops you also need nutrient rich soil. Soil is affected negatively by most forms of pollution (very few affect it positively, and the consequences of these few are apparent elsewhere). Pollution increases with a larger population. In the future, if there is a population of 10,000,000 on an island, where each person has a "carbon imprint" of 2 tons, that is 20,000,000 tons. Right now on that same island with less technology and only 5,000,000 people, each person has a carbon imprint of 4 tons (because the technology is less advanced), so that is 20,000,000 tons.

You understand what I'm getting at right? Even with technological advancement, population growth must be halted, and that process must begin Now.

I am sorry but I'm just going to have to pull the "I am right, you are wrong" card here :/ This is something that I am fairly well educated in, and I have a feeling that you know not what you speak of.

Iran's correlation with negative growth is not the cause of it's problems.

Yes the US's population growth is fairly good relative to other countries, this is because we are a post-industrialized nation. However, it is still not good enough for reasons I have outlined.

Countries like China and India that are undergoing massive population growth to catch up to the U.S.'s economy are doing so with a price, they are polluting the air, water, and land to an astonishing degree.

Space and resources Are running out, you have to remember that there has to be a substantial amount of land for wildlife (which is essential for our existence, we cannot selfishly continue to destroy other species, entire ecosystems can be/are thrown out of equilibrium from the loss of a single species, the consequences of which do affect us) and for crops (we are constantly breeding new strains of crops that will occupy less space, but there is only so far we can go, and evidence shows that it cannot keep up with exponential population growth)

I find the underlined section partially disturbing and what follows it in no way justifies the statement.

Yes it has, problem is that it has negative effects on the global climate that people didn't know of when oil use was becoming proliferate. It was great to jump-start us into the current age, but now we need to get off the stuff.

You are still not understanding the concept of Exponents.

Light energy is free, other energy sources aren't. To grow crops you also need nutrient rich soil. Soil is affected negatively by most forms of pollution (very few affect it positively, and the consequences of these few are apparent elsewhere). Pollution increases with a larger population. In the future, if there is a population of 10,000,000 on an island, where each person has a "carbon imprint" of 2 tons, that is 20,000,000 tons. Right now on that same island with less technology and only 5,000,000 people, each person has a carbon imprint of 4 tons (because the technology is less advanced), so that is 20,000,000 tons.

You understand what I'm getting at right? Even with technological advancement, population growth must be halted, and that process must begin Now.

1. I see you are arguing from the global warming camp, and in light of that, I am not going to service this debate by addressing it, thereby recognizing global warming as a viable theory worthy of debate, BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

2. My argument is that the data you brought up was incomparable to the type and magnitude of development in the points I brought up with oil/electricity and comparable technologies awaiting us in the future. Not that it was completely irrelevant, but that it's a square peg in a round hole as far as this debate is concerned. it doesn't quite fit.

3. When I said light, I meant the use of ARTIFICIAL light; you know, like those little compact fluorescent bulbs that CA is now forced to use to help the environment and curb Global Cooling/warming/fart/excrement, despite the oh so friendly toxic chemicals within them. Plants could theoretically be grown in controlled environments like greenhouses (and no, stop thinking about the "greenhouse effect") in environments formerly useless for crop production, DURING ANY SEASON. This isn't typically done now (especially not in poorer countries) because there are vast limits in the amount of energy that can be used to maintain such environments in the large spaces required. Artificial heating, cooling, and lighting all require and energy source, and that is what makes such agriculture methods completely impractical because of the costs. An advance in energy technology on the scale I'm talking about, however, would all but eliminate that problem and open the doors for MASSIVE advancements in artificial agricultural techniques. Add to that plants don't technically REQUIRE soil. They require nutrients. That is why we have something called hydroponics where nutrients are provided with nothing but water. It's a very good alternative to using soil, and is even used in space. I know what I'm talking about with this stuff. I've been in horticulture for nearly a decade, and I know how this ish works.

4. Are we really debating about the merits of eugenics? I mean really???